W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: New proposal for WCAG conformance

From: Tom Croucher <tcroucher@netalleynetworks.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:22:32 +0100
To: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, gv@trace.wisc.edu, Michael Cooper <michaelc@watchfire.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <oprw46bufiu930jj@mail.icet.co.uk>

Last week during the brief discussion we had at the end of the call when 
we had a little time I suggested that we do not call these sucess criteria 
A, double-A and triple-A.

My reasoning that although we want to make the new system analagous to 
WCAG 1.0 it is NOT the same. As such a naming system such as Category 1, 
Category 2 and Category 3 might be better. I also uses the term 'category' 
on purpose as oposed to level. Due to the way the performance claims are 
structured in WCAG 2.0 (something that has actually be questioned again 
recently) I think it is important we get away from anything which might 
emphasise a minumum requirement. So, although you can not have a category 
2 conformance claim without already conforming to category 1 the terms we 
use are not suggesting that "level a" is the minmum you need to do. Some 
people will probably still take it as such whatever we do but I think it 
is important we actively try to not emphasise a heirarchy.

Tom

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:11:55 -0500, John M Slatin 
<john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:

> Couldn't we use something like <abbr title="double A">AA</abbr>  to
> solve this? Or even <abbr title="A A">AA</abbr>?
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> "Good design is accessible design."
> Please note our new name and URL!
> John Slatin, Ph.D.
> Director, Accessibility Institute
> University of Texas at Austin
> FAC 248C
> 1 University Station G9600
> Austin, TX 78712
> ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
> email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
> web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
> <http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:03 am
> To: 'Michael Cooper'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: New proposal for WCAG conformance
>
>
>
> Hi Michael
>
>
>
> The reason for  Single A , Double A etc is that some screen readers and
> talking browsers read   A  AA AAA  as AH AHH and AHHHH
>
>
>
>
>
> How about      A ,    2A ,  and   3A
>
>
>
> Look like old system but is a bit different - making it easy to compare
> and tell the difference.
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
>  -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Michael Cooper
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 8:15 AM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: New proposal for WCAG conformance
>
>
>
> I like the simplicity of this proposal as well. A couple minor comments
> for the mill:
>
>
>
> The "Principles" need introductory text. No need to write now, but there
> should be a placeholder. This jumps out at me more when they're
> "principles" than when they're "guidelines".
>
>
>
> "Single-A Success Criteria", "Double-A Success Criteria", etc. rubs me
> as weird terminology. Perhaps just "A Success Criteria", "AA Success
> Criteria", etc. since there's a goal to stick with pre-existing
> approaches.
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
> 	Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 1:48 PM
> 	To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> 	Subject: New proposal for WCAG conformance
>
> 	[NOTE: This is posted today for discussion NEXT week.  Not for
> this week.  Not sufficient time for people to review. Comments welcome
> though.]
>
> 	
>
> 	Described here is an alternate way to look at conformance
>
> 	
>
> 	It addresses the following concerns
>
> 	1 - multiple dimensions of conformance
>
> 	2 - match to WCAG 1.0 in structure and measures
>
> 	[BBC] I'd reword #2 to say "compatibility with WCAG 1.0 and
> other WAI guidelines" 3 - ability to both have minimum and advanced ways
> to address individual guidelines
>
> 	
>
> 	This proposal assumes:
>
> 	
>
> 	1 - that the 4 guidelines are now principles (Perceivable,
> Operable, Understandable and Robust)
>
> 	
>
> 	2 - that the old checkpoints are now Guidelines.
>
> 	
>
> 	3 - that the success criteria remain success criteria  (the term
> checkpoints would be reserved for the checklists so we don't have
> confusion between the two which is almost certain if we have checklists
> and checkpoints that are different.
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	Proposed:
>
> 	
>
> 	- The terms CORE and EXTENDED are dropped. (these terms are used
> differently in other technical specs and didn't quite fit here.  Also
> they introduced a completely different structure and terminology than
> WCAG 1.0)
>
> 	
>
> 	- All 20 (or so) guidelines would be listed under the four
> principles and numbered  1.1, 1.2 etc. (no change from previous drafts)
>
> 	
>
> 	- All success criteria are labeled as Category 1, 2 or 3
>
> 	
>
> 	    Category 1 = success criteria that
>
> 	       a) the author is not told how to present their
> information,
>
> 	       b) the criteria are reasonably applicable to all websites
> in general
>
> 	
>
> 	       c) are machine or HHIR testable.
>
> 	
>
> 	   Category 2 = success criteria that
>
> 	      a) are reasonably applicable to all websites in general
> and
>
> 	      b) are machine or HHIR testable
>
> 	      c) may require the author to present their content in
>
> 	      particular ways to conform.
>
> 	
>
> 	   Category 3 = additional criteria that go beyond Category 1
> and 2
>
> 	      that authors may want to consider if they want to make
> their sites
>
> 	      accessible or more usable to people with all or particular
> types of
>
> 	      disability.
>
> 	
>
> 	- Some guidelines will have NO Category 1 items under them and
> are so marked.
>
> 	
>
> 	- The conformance would take the form of the familiar A, AA, and
> AAA.  The only difference would be that guidelines without category 1
> criteria would be listed at the end of each principle and would have a
> title following them
>
> 	that said, "no Level A criteria for this guideline."
>
> 	
>
> 	- the Categories might be relabeled A, AA and AAA
>
> 	
>
> 	- The guidelines (or an accompanying document) could have a
> series of checkboxes that allowed the user to view it with the following
> materials showing or hidden.
>
> 	
>
> 	    - Introduction
>
> 	    - Level A success criteria
>
> 	    - Level AA success criteria
>
> 	    - Level AAA additional criteria
>
> 	    - Benefits
>
> 	    - Examples
>
> 	    - Appendix
>
> 	
>
> 	This would have a couple disadvantages that we can look at and
> tweak. But, the advantages look like they outweigh the weaknesses.
>
> 	
>
> 	And, it solves most of the problems we have been facing:
>
> 	  - WCAG 2.0 would for the first time look like an evolution of
> WCAG 1.0
>
> 	  - The familiar A, AA, AAA would be there.
>
> 	  - Most of the WCAG 1.0 will match up with WCAG 2.0 except
> where the
>
> 	    working group believes that they no long should.
>
> 	  - The guidelines would look more like 1.0 but would be
> generic.
>
> 	  - Transition would be easier to understand.
>
> 	
>
> 	To see how all this might look, we have posted another
> reorganization proposal at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/10/reorg5.html.
>
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	Note that a number of condensed views of this draft are provided
> immediately following the list of editors.
>
> 	
>
> 	You can view it with ONLY Level A conformance criteria.
>
> 	Or A plus Double A
>
> 	Or A plus Double A plus Triple A
>
> 	
>
> 	The appendix is shown in all views
>
> 	
>
> 	The Examples and Benefits could be made to appear in different
> views but only appear in the full view right now.
>
> 	
>
> 	PS if you click on a view then want to get back to the full doc
> you can hit "BACK" or click on the "THIS VERSION" link at the top of
> all views.
>
> 	
>
> 	-Gregg and Ben
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2003 11:22:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:26 GMT